travel in time is just a myth?

[TinyTree]

So, you all agree that time has a vectoral characteristics and close relation with the speed of light?

I think that empirically we can rule out time travel. Why? Because, as soon as it was invented, the future would begin infringing on the past. This is not a phenomena we observe, or at least, if it is impinging, it is so indirect as to be a non issue.

It is similar to a divide by zero issue- as soon as time travel becomes possible, the present would become scrambled- so scrambled it would dissolve away. We would cease to exist. Some nut from the future would come into the past blasting away everything with 4005 technology. Another set of nuts would come after him. Then the people from the further future would come back. Everyone would be coming back to mess with the origination of the human race, and humanity would vanish, society would become completely different, and future technologies would be replete through our space.

[dleviwing]

We will have to agree to differ on this,I see that it is NOT lack of knowledge that is the problem,but rather lack of acceptance!Two paradoxes that are very real if you are able understand that is:One is that ALL motion arises from stillness?
And the other is that to fully understand life "you" must die!

Well Michael, your first paradox proves my comment that if a concept has a paradox, it is WRONG. Your second paradox is just foolish philosophy.

[mkirkpatrick]

The second paradox that you refer to as "foolish philosophy" has been held steadily for
over 6 thousand years,and accepted by millions as a reality,which it is by the way!
But you know better than all the wisdom of the centuries,Whats your address by the way,
prehaps I can direct any pilgrims of the way to your house,as you seem to be the font of intellect.

The paradox is that motion arises from motionlesssness!Remember though,motion only
exists in this physical universe?Not in the unmanifested potential!Where all is absolutely
still-motionless.

regards michael.

[use]

Hi TinyTree,

your explination on time travel from the empirical point of view is correct and actualy the most understandable concept to the broader public however empirical explination is somewhat connected with more scientific approach and that is basicaly information existence or non-existence.

Let us assume that all the Universe ( macro and micro terms too ) is our perception ( based on interpretation on our instruments and our general logic ).It would mean at the end that macro and micro levels are considered as the same thing, also let us assume that this does not authomaticaly erase all the facts we know about Universe ( mass, energy, time, forces, space ) however we may accept that corrections in interaction between these 5 facts are acceptable if proven logical ( this term is the closest one to one I have in mind ).There are many consequences of this assumption which have huge implications but I will now move forward to just one, as you know our memory is an information storage place which actualy detect and store unique non-repeatable information which could be processed and modified for many reasons if needed.Time itself could be very roughly explained as a measurement of mass/energy and-or mass/energy interaction therefore what we store in memory is time related information.Existence or non-existence of information in the assumed Universe would give us many possible theories and I will extract some of the interesting key points from it.

1. Time travel is impossible in the same time line however it is possible in other time lines ( implication on traveling in other time lines are quite remarkable )- it would mean that, if time travel technology is not capable of solving traveling safely between time lines, there could be no traveleres from other time lines detectable to us
2. Time itself is an essential part of the so-called unified force theory, this in our assumed Universe would even mean that time actually is the so-called unified force
3. Existence or non-existence of single or total information ( could be anything from 0... ) in our assumed Universe is only directed from parameter time- if we now apply our gewneral knowledge we will see that there are 3 solutions to this
- number of informations in total is always the same
- from the creation of Universe number of informations in total is getting lower
- from the creation of Universe number of informations in total is getting higher

best regards,

use

[thinking]

hi
many theories says:" traveling faster than the speed of ligth means tha we will travel backwards on the time line according to the theory of relativity" but as is said traveling very fast the biological work on tha body will slow down and we will get older slower than athers who do not travel at that speed. that should mean: traveling faster than te speed of ligth our bodys will become younger and everythig will go reverse on time that sould mean going back on the time of begining the motion so you will be prisoned at that moment. isn't that logical?

we tend to think and look at time travel as , JUST the affects on US. this is errouneous. time travel is far , far , more complex .

not only does time travel affect us but the WHOLE of the Universe , at that moment.

so to travel back in time means that every atom in Universe must be brought back in time as well. a little daunting. now multiply this by those who wish to go back in time? choas.

[David Maes]

I think it could be possible to transport messages to the past, by doing it faster than light. But I also think it could just be that c is just the limit.
I don't know.

Shall we be able to travel faster than light or not?
I don't know.

If it would be possible to travel faster than light; for example you travel to the past and you change something there, then I think you would enter a parallel universe; otherwise paradoxes would arise.
Would parallel universes be connected by a wormhole?

Anyhow I think time travel won't be for the near future.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Time travel into the near future is quite possible: here we go… a few seconds into it. OK, that worked.

Time travel from the now into the past is accomplished by memory, for it reconstructs it.

Time travel form the future back to now is impossible since no one has come back to see us from there! (Remember, the future consists of billions of years.)

[David Maes]

Time travel to the future is possible. In fact, everyone constantly does it (just a tiny little bit). You move relative to those who are left behind. At the end of the journey, you will be slightly younger then those who are left behind. However, the difference in age is only an extreme little fraction of a second (in fact nanoseconds). (This because of relativity). You understand that this difference is that small that nobody really uses it in practice.

We can also see the past, this happens constantly. If you look to the sun, you see something which happened 8 minutes ago; because it takes 8 minutes for the light to travel from the sun to the earth. So basically, imagine that the sun would explode for example, it would take 8 minutes before we notice that.
If you look at someone at the other end of the table, what you see will have happened about 3 nanoseconds ago (again a very small difference for practice).

If you look to stars, what you see could have happend thousands of years ago; if you look at galaxies, I think it's millions of years ago.

But can we travel to the past? Maybe, but not today.
The closest I think we know about now, is the Einstein-Rosen-bridge. But you need some exotic matter which generates antigravity, otherwise the bridge will collapse on the one who travels through it. Of course, as you read, this is rather speculative.

Of course, travelling to the past causes lots of paradoxes.
There is something very realistic Stephen Hawking once said; why haven't we met anyone from the future yet?

So is it possible? The current laws of physics don't forbid it, but they neither support it. We need new physics to answer the question.

[Wick]

I have never seen the future. I have never seen the past. All my life, I have only seen the present. I do not move into the future. But I do feel that the present I am in moves forward somehow. I have no reason to believe that the present moves into something else (aka the future). It simply moves.

I am puzzled by all the people who seem to faithfully believe in these things we call the past and the future. I'm puzzled because I am certain that they, too, have never been to the future or to the past. They, like I, have always been fixed squarely in this place we call the present.

Memory is not a vestige of the past. Memory is merely a specific configuration in my mind which exists ONLY in the present. My recollections are here with me. They are a record of configurations of the present that came before...but they are not evidence that the past actually exists. Neither are bones, or tree rings, or ancient relics, or books, or lady bug spots evidence that a past exists. These are only records of long gone configurations of the present.

There are people in science who fault the religious man for believing in a God he cannot see. But these same scientists have an almost fanatical belief in the past and future (or in other words, this assumption we call space-time)...which they have never seen. Space-time is also an unseen god. Why then should we believe in it?

I am a skeptic of time. I will believe that there is a past and future when somebody takes me there. If they have the power to pry me out of the moving present and carry me back to the bustling streets of Babylon or into the unbuilt cities of the Moon, then I will be believe. Until then, I will never believe that time is a navigable medium or a god who holds my destiny in its unmoving hands.

Wick

[Meem]

I have never seen the past.

If you accept C, you must accept that over 99.9% of the stars you see in the night sky are (is) the past. Fore, presently the light could be striking your eye but how .... if the star ceased to exist more than a thousand years ago? Do say look at the light currently reaching my retina in the present formation eventhough the majority of them could not even be there anymore, and in the very least are in an extremely different location, currently. There's only one star, we can see presently.